He very explicitly stated what about the post was off-putting to him. You made a comment about being personally attacked while repeating the tool is better without any argument whatsoever.
You're exactly proving the point of the comment.
And the part that they listed as "off-putting" was a very tame and popular sentiment, to the point that it's off-putting itself (or at least bizarre) to be "off-put" by it.
Not to mention that the whole comment is based on a bizarro claim amounting to "who needs LSP/treesitter anyway" and how they can't see the point of those (probably the most requested features from any new editor), since he "never uses autocomplete".
Still, "I can't see the point for feature X" and "I never use X" are totally fine. But saying that people saying they appreciate them and consider them important is "off-putting"?
No, they contextualized that these improvements aren't actually improving anything for them, as they're not actually interested in using these features. And thus, it's no longer a better tool for them.
>He is saying that these tools aren't improving his dev process and therefore are not better for him.
That would just be a personal preference thing, and it would be fine if they just stated that and left it at that.
But they also mention how they are "put off" (wtf) from people who claim that the LSP/tree-sitter support makes this a viable candidate to replace vim/neovim.
Saying you're being "put off" by what others use, is no longer a "this is what works for me" claim. In this context, the "I never needed to use autocomplete" sounds like some ill-conceived bragging point.
The commenter stated clearly that they are not put off by what others use but their claims that their shiny new toy is going to replace everything in a couple of years. Those people are just trolling; trolls are off-putting.
>Those people are just trolling; trolls are off-putting.
Trolling means saying something you don't believe in to start a ruckus/annoy people/make a flame war.
People saying that an editor done in the spirit of vim can replace vim/neovim, since it has LSP/tree-sitter support (which translates to: since it, on top of what it inherently has, automatically gets auto-complete/lint/etc support for all kinds of languages) is perhaps a little over-optimistic but in absolutely no way does it constitute trolling.
Now, the commenter would be fine to state that they're put-off by claims that "this is going to replace everything in a couple of years".
But, for starters, nobody stated that "it is going to replace everything in a couple of years". Just that it could, over due time (not "a couple of years") gain traction over vim/neovim and perhaps others for users wanting a vim-like editor.
Besides, he explicitly wrote that what puts him off is not that claim alone, but "how some people are claiming its going to replace vim/nevoim and others by the virtue of its great LSP and tree sitter support".
-- that is, he is put off people touting "LSP/tree-sitter" as features relevant to this editor gaining popularity. He even uses "I never needed to use auto complete" as some kind of supporting argument that others shouldn't consider those features important either...
> Trolling means saying something you don't believe in to start a ruckus/annoy people/make a flame war.
No it doesn't; please don't make up word semantics to try to make people look wrong. It's childish and pointless.
A disruptor cannot be absolved of trolling by it being confirmed that they believe in their own statements; a good many trolls are invested in their message, not just in disruption activity.
> nobody stated that
The put-off person was relating experiences from elsewhere to which you have no access to be able to say that. But in fact, I think I saw very similar remarks in comments under this very HN submission.
Some people are put off by trollish OS/language/editor/hardware/whatever advocacy. And water is wet, and dogs bark.
> how some people are claiming its going to replace vim/nevoim and others by the virtue of its great LSP and tree sitter suppor
That literally means "the outdated shit you're using ain't gonna be here before long, now that we have this", which is trolling even by your definition that incorporates disbelief in one's own statements.
>> Trolling means saying something you don't believe in to start a ruckus/annoy people/make a flame war.
> No it doesn't; please don't make up word semantics to try to make people look wrong. It's childish and pointless.
OK, this conversation doesn't have a point anymore. I make up "word semantics"? What I described is the canonical definition of trolling. Don't believe me? Here are some third party one's:
Cambridge dictionary: the act of leaving an insulting message on the internet in order to annoy someone
Urban dictionary: Trolling – (verb), as it relates to internet, is the deliberate act, (by a Troll – noun or adjective), of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments on various internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument
Merriam-Webster: to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content
In any case, nobody knowing what a troll is and hiw it's used would consider people saying "this editor as is, and with the aid of LSP/tree-sitter support it has, will gain adoption" fits any definition of a troll.
That's even if we consider people posting stuff they sincerely believe as "trolling". If the intention is not to mock/insult and get a reaction out of those reading the message, it's not trolling.
Those people are just optimistic for some new tech. That's a dime a dozen in HN and tech forums or blogs. At worse they're hyping it (like the Nth "X in Rust"). All of this has nothing to do with trolling
So, I don't know what bizarro definition you have. If you do have one, do share it.
